|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT |
Sounds like SCO - "We paid lots of money. We must have
bought the copyrights!"
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
I know that analogies are not that which they analogize, and
I know that the name of a class or a method in an API is
more than just a _name_ in that it serves as a
token/identifier during actual _operation_ of the kinetic
work of industrial art that is computer code, but I keep
thinking that claiming that one has copyrighted the name of
a method or class (or package or any other pieces-part of an
API or its implementing code that must be invoked absolutely
correctly for both operability and compatibility of the
code) is tantamount to claiming copyright on the _title_ of
a book, article, or song. And titles cannot be protected by
copyright.
It starts to feel in following this deep dumb sleazy Oracle
dive that they would like in this court for "copyright" to
be felt by the jury as affording the aegis of "trademark",
as if using the same name/token for/in clean-room-clean
interoperable/compatible code violated protection by a
trademark or service mark.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
The signatures on all the banknotes used to pay for Sun?
Mmm, I know, they don't own those either...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
Everything that Oracle has got
Which happens to be nothing that Google has
except for the organisation of the manual
and nine lines of code.
and a couple of testfiles.
What is the value of a copyright in a document that you cast wild into the world
until it was embedded in a programmers memory, well a small section anyway?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
